𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐤 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭y

In the aftermath of the budget, the Banking Act was amended on 31st July 2026 to discharge a bank or other financial institution from the strict duty of confidentiality in disclosing customer information to the Financial Crimes Commission (FCC). A financial institution is now required to provide customer information to the FCC, without the requirement of a Judge’s order, in compliance with “an order or notice under the FCC Act 2023”.

Prior to this amendment, the Banking Act provided a waiver of banking confidentiality in specific circumstances, such as the sharing of information among banks, other financial institutions and the central bank for business and due diligence purposes, and for reporting under the Income Tax Act or to the FIU under money laundering legislation. The amended Section 64(3)(k) of the Banking Act now extends this waiver on bank confidentiality to the sharing of customer information to FCC, a law enforcement agency.

The Financial Services Commission (FSC), the Commissioner or Police, the Mauritius Revenue Authority, or any other competent authority in or outside Mauritius will continue, under Section 64(9) of the Banking Act, to obtain customer and account information from a financial institution under a disclosure order granted by a Judge in Chambers.

In view of the concerns raised by this amendment, the Attorney General sought to reassure the public in an interview to l’Express on 16 August 2026. He maintained that bank confidentiality remains intact and described the amendment as merely correcting a textual incongruity, or “𝙪𝙣𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙤𝙢𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙚 𝙡𝙚𝙭𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙚”.

Prior to the amendment, the Banking Act allowed for waiving confidentiality in compliance with “𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝘂𝗿𝘀𝘂𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘁 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗔𝗰𝘁” (AR Act), which was repealed and its provisions subsumed by the FCC Act. The amendment, according to the Attorney General, therefore only sought to update the reference from the AR Act to the FCC Act.

However, the substitution of “𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝘂𝗿𝘀𝘂𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘁 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗔𝗰𝘁”, 𝗯𝘆 “𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗿 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗖𝗖 𝗔𝗰𝘁 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟯” goes beyond a text correction, since FCC is a law enforcement agency engaged in the investigation of a broad range of financial crimes, whereas asset recovery concerns an investigation of a specific nature.

An asset recovery investigation relates to properties which are proceeds and instrumentalities of unlawful activities, including any property seized during criminal investigations, and linked to terrorism. Sec 68A of the FCC Act empowers the FCC to request customer and account information from a financial institution for an asset recovery investigation, without requiring a Judge’s order, by serving the financial institution with a notice to provide the requested information.

If, as the Attorney General contends, the amendment to the Banking Act is intended solely for asset recovery investigations and not other FCC investigations, the amending provision should have referred specifically to Sec 68A of the FCC Act. The wording of the amendment should then state “𝗮 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝟲𝟴𝗔 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗖𝗖 𝗔𝗰𝘁”.

In the absence of a specific reference to Sec 68A, there are reasons to believe that the FCC will seek information, without a Judge’s order, for investigations extending beyond asset recovery. 𝑰𝒏 𝒗𝒊𝒆𝒘 𝒐𝒇 𝒑𝒂𝒔𝒕 𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒖𝒔𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑭𝑪𝑪 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒑𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒔, 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒑𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒇 𝒖𝒏𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒅𝒊𝒔𝒄𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒊𝒏𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑭𝑪𝑪, 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝒂 𝑱𝒖𝒅𝒈𝒆’𝒔 𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒆𝒓, 𝒆𝒓𝒐𝒅𝒆𝒔 𝒑𝒖𝒃𝒍𝒊𝒄 𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒔𝒕 𝒊𝒏 𝒃𝒂𝒏𝒌 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒇𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑴𝒂𝒖𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒏 𝒇𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝒔𝒚𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒎.

A separate amendment to the Banking Act, which the Attorney General makes no mention of, is equally disturbing. Previously, bank confidentiality was waived for the central bank (BoM) to obtain customer information from financial institutions in order to assist the FSC in the discharge of its functions under the Financial Services Act, or in meeting international obligations.

𝑨𝒏 𝒂𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 64(3)(𝒐) 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑩𝒂𝒏𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑨𝒄𝒕, 𝒏𝒐𝒘 𝒆𝒎𝒑𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒃𝒂𝒏𝒌 𝒕𝒐 𝒐𝒃𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏 𝒄𝒖𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒎𝒆𝒓 𝒊𝒏𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒐 𝒂𝒍𝒔𝒐 𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒔𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑭𝑪𝑪 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒅𝒊𝒔𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒓𝒈𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒊𝒕𝒔 𝒇𝒖𝒏𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑭𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝑪𝒓𝒊𝒎𝒆𝒔 𝑪𝒐𝒎𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑨𝒄𝒕, 𝒐𝒓 𝒊𝒕𝒔 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝒐𝒃𝒍𝒊𝒈𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔. In consequence, the FCC can now gain access to customer information from banks via BoM for its investigations, including for asset recovery.

Information sharing between the BoM and the FSC, both financial regulatory bodies, is generally regarded as normal and accepted practice. By contrast, information sharing with the FCC, which operates as a law enforcement institution, is not appropriate. The central bank appears to adopt a new role as a law enforcement agent, with added powers to participate in FCC investigations.

BoM was acting as a Government Department under the previous regime, executing disastrous financial policies under orders from the Ministry of Finance. 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙛𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙗𝙚 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙨 𝙖 𝙙𝙚𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙁𝘾𝘾.This new strategic alignment with FCC is baffling as BoM itself should be under FCC scrutiny in relation to the MIC and Silver Bank financial scandals.

The Second Deputy Prime Minister strongly defended the amended bank confidentiality provisions in the National Assembly, stating: “𝙏𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙤𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙖𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙩 𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙚𝙨, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙤𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙖𝙣 𝙪𝙥𝙙𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙨𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣. 𝙁𝙪𝙡𝙡 𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙥. 𝙉𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙚𝙡𝙨𝙚.” The fact that the Attorney General publicly repeated the same explanation two weeks later is noteworthy. Nevertheless, public opinion still regards the amendments as an inappropriate weakening of bank confidentiality safeguards in order to prop up the FCC’s authority.